Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Issue That Could Fracture Both Right and Left

электронная почта без регистрации

2010-03-02T22:29:31.370-05:00

@mustbepatient Yes, raze the current system to th...

2009-10-23T17:57:25.256-04:00

@mustbepatient

Yes, raze the current system to the ground. Not just "let the bank fail" but a MUCH more fundamental change than that.

P.S. Of course Bart DePalma doesn't understand it. He's only a libertarian of convenience, the most common excuse for whatever he wants to rationalize today.

It doesn't sound like many of you understand the L...

2009-10-23T16:34:57.452-04:00

It doesn't sound like many of you understand the Libertarian perspective here. A Libertarian would tell you that the Federal Reserve must be abolished, and the large banks are extensions of the Fed at this point, not capitalist enterprises. I don't see how a Libertarian would justify leaving them alone as the Fed is dismantled.

Robert said... ~~~~~~~~~~ Then we'll also have to...

2009-10-23T10:10:46.651-04:00

Robert said...
~~~~~~~~~~

Then we'll also have to disagree re: sarcasm and mean spirited. And smugly telling the truth and knowingly distorting the truth.

Combating conservative disingenuous smugness w/sarcasm is harmless imo and it comes down to one's politics how much someone is offended by said posts.

Everyone is free to ignore everyone else's posts here as political discussion on the net can be total detachment from reality as many wingers display at 538. As mentioned previously, typing words on a keyboard is harmless unless one already has psychological problems.

Some wingers are more subtle in their disingenuous, passive aggressive bull crap ie Jeff, BDP, etc.

Also mentioned I prefer face to face debate, as internet discussion, as a rule goes nowhere for obvious reasons.

Bottom line, again, most conservative wingers could never, ever perceive the reality of a Rep ever losing the presidency to a Dem, let alone, last Nov. an African/American yada, yada, yada candidate winning the presidency and will never come to terms w/an African/American family living in the White House. Of course they can never admit this political reality er prejudices/hatred which makes political discussion by progressives all the more fun ...

And if you like Obama, hope you're not too disappo...

2009-10-23T09:31:19.268-04:00

And if you like Obama, hope you're not too disappointed both Rachel and Keith were recently invited to the White House

Don't really care, cause it has nothing to do with his ability to accept good ideas.

Olbermann and Maddow are harmless and not mean spirited

Oh come on. I'll give you that Maddow is more civil than Olbermann, but to seriously suggest that they're not mean spirited? Condescension coats their every word. It's not harmless, because their followers are then equally condescending, so when their conservative counterparts tell their viewers that liberals don't respect them, it's just that much easier to believe.

I'm not suprised you don't realize this, as you are a prime example of this condescension. Nearly every post you make here slings some kind of insult at conservatives (wingers, sheep, fixed noise, etc, just from this one thread). If you don't see how this is obstructive to rational discourse, then you are as hopeless as you seem.

No one is going to ever seriously consider your viewpoint as long as you keep insulting them while expressing it. This is just a basic fact of human nature.

Robert said... ~~~~~~~~~~ Whereas I will agree O...

2009-10-23T04:24:59.402-04:00

Robert said...
~~~~~~~~~~

Whereas I will agree Olbermann is over the top and a prima donna, Rachel is not and we'll just have to disagree about equally divisive and condescending as fox news and conservative talk radio whole purpose in life is to attack and distort news re: progressives, Dems and Obama 24/7. Totally divisive and obsessively hateful.

btw, Olbermann admits he's a prima donna whereas everyone on fixed save Shepard Smith is a prima donna, totally in the tank for the Rep party, not a close call and of course they won't admit there sole purpose for existence is to distort the news and bring down Obama any way they can.

And if you like Obama, hope you're not too disappointed both Rachel and Keith were recently invited to the White House and it was Maddow's 2nd visit as she was also invited last January.

Capped a couple segments last nite from both 'Countdown' and Maddow's show as they both talk about being attacked for their visit and Obama truthfully calling out fixed for being a conservative opinion cabal as opposed to a legitimate news organization and the hypocrisy of fixed and talk radio considering the previous (8) cheney/bush years where wingers were included and progressives were on the outside and attacked for being the sole opposition to the cheney/bush madness!

If you can bear to watch lol also included a little, hmm, very little, palin comic relief in the middle.

Olbermann/Maddow ~ White House visit ~ Obama/Fixed bruhaha ~ palin going rogue/going rouge (17:59)

Olbermann and Maddow are harmless and not mean spirited ie the opposite of fox news, Limbaugh, etc. imo ...

and Maddow's a lot fairer than Olbermann as she is constantly inviting wingers/conservatives on her show, whereas Olbermann's show is entirely a progressive point of view.

Although most wingers are too chicken to appear on Rachel's show 'cause apparently she's the boogeyman ;) and she's gay and as "we" all know conservatives can't appear w/gays, not kosher, eh ...

The tea party movement is niether "Libertatian" of...

2009-10-23T01:40:41.585-04:00

The tea party movement is niether "Libertatian" of "Populist." It's Anti-Obama.

Olbermann/Maddow, although sarcastic and opinionat...

2009-10-22T23:48:48.041-04:00

Olbermann/Maddow, although sarcastic and opinionated, provide factual information daily.

That's hardly the point. They're every bit as divisive and condescending as their conservative counterparts. The entire group, all of whom are more concerned with hearing themselves talk than actually furthering rational discourse, do more to engender "us vs them" attitudes among their respective groups than any crazy fringe group ever could. People, on both sides, who listen to these nutbags, are the ones who have the most difficult time considering the opposing viewpoint (yes, this includes progressives, liberals, or whatever else you want to call left-leaning individuals), and who promote the gridlock impasses we have in our legislative processes.

One of the things I like the most about Obama, is that of all the politicians I've observed (and I don't doubt that there are others who do this), he is most willing to listen to any good idea that's brought to the table, regardless of whether it's liberal/conservative/not his. You can't do that when you're convinced the other side has nothing useful to say.

There are plenty of pundits who can deliver factual information and partisan opinion without stirring up a bees nest of hatred for those who disagree. But these are the same people who aren't so ridiculously self-centered that they need to be on tv/radio 24/7.

No, Olbermann and Maddow are every bit as bad for the national discourse as Hannity or Limbaugh. We would all be better off without the whole lot.

The King controlled the colonies from what may hav...

2009-10-22T18:20:52.975-04:00

The King controlled the colonies from what may have well have been a universe away. The colonies could not be represented fairly from overseas and they were not going to let what they envisioned as a growing nation to be governed from a central capital.

I also take issue with this. It wasn't that the king could not have allowed the colonies to have representation (and in fact, after the initial revolt, we sent plenty of representatives overseas begging for resources/help from other monarchies, some of whom did listen), it was that he refused to allow them to have representation in the British government. Once it was made abundantly clear that the king wasn't just too busy, but was actively disinterested in hearing greivances from the colonies' representatives, even the most conservative (of action, not of political opinion) became convinced that a revolution was the only option left.

If the king had been willing to be reasonable, things would have (probably) played out differently. But he was a jerk, and so here we are.

Robert said... Besides, anyone who blindly re...

2009-10-22T18:15:12.971-04:00

Robert said...

Besides, anyone who blindly repeats anything from Hannity/Rush et al or Olbermann/Maddow et al should be ignored as moronic anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~

Whereas both twosomes are highly partisan, hannity/limbo distort the truth daily and are all about misinformation hate speak, racist spin which could never pass truthful scrutiny ...

and Olbermann/Maddow, although sarcastic and opinionated, provide factual information daily.

and yes, many winger sheep blindly worship Limbaugh, fixednoise et al as evidenced by their purported high ratings.

Again, progressives like to be entertained, whereas the remaining, dwindling conservative lemmings want to be led by winger talk radio and foxnews.

ie the progressives are extremely happy since Nov. 2008 and the Reps are totally pissed off an African/American currently resides on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

btw, Olbermann and Maddow criticize Obama and the Dem party all the time! on all political issues.

"To say they were for more government control in t...

2009-10-22T17:44:08.856-04:00

"To say they were for more government control in the 1770's does not mean they would be for more goverment control in 2009. The founding fathers would be horrified at the size and reach of the federal government today."

This is a far more reasonable statement than your original assertion that The founding fathers founded this country based on "MORE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION".

As I stated earlier, the question isnt more, or less, or how much is right. It's a question of what can the government do right? There are plenty of examples where the government has stepped in primarily because leaving it to the general populace/private sector produced unacceptable results. If the government can do something better than the populace, and they are given the right to by congress, then they absolutely should do it. This is part of why the Constitution is designed to be amended, and in fact, to grant more power to the government when it is deemed necessary.

This is why I find the suggestion that the founding fathers believed "more government is not the solution" to be so out of touch with reality. They intentionally made a document that allows the government to grow with the needs of the people, by giving the people the right to grant additional power to the government.

I think most conservatives, when pressed, should be able to concede that there are some things that the government does that they are fine with. Otherwise they should be anarchists. Similarly, liberals, when pressed, should be able to concede there are things the government does that it shouldn't. Otherwise they are actually totalitarians.

Our common ground is supposed to be where we determine what the government can do best, and not get drawn into distractions of large or small government, which are pretty arbitrary terms to begin with.

Besides, anyone who blindly repeats anything from Hannity/Rush et al or Olbermann/Maddow et al should be ignored as moronic anyway.

Nor did the founders understand the issues facing ...

2009-10-22T17:41:40.512-04:00

Nor did the founders understand the issues facing governments in a globally-connected and technologically advanced world, where a person couldn't just claim a plot of land and make his living, where medicine wasn't just bleeding and salves, where formal education was a prerequisite for just about everything.

What this ideologically-diverse group of men would hypothetically think of our society is basically irrelevant to how we should address pertinent issues.

But it's interesting that concerning issues in common between our time and theirs, i.e. monetary policy, defense, trade, and communication, they believed in some amount of regulation.

Obliterati said: "The teabaggers will take the opp...

2009-10-22T17:39:31.035-04:00

Obliterati said: "The teabaggers will take the opposite position that the White House takes, whatever that may be. No matter what Obama does or says or proposes, the teabaggers will oppose it, with great enthusiasm. It's a mortal lock - the safest bet in the history of the universe."

Although I'm afraid you'll be proven right, I'm willing to take the opposite view here only because I know there is a large component of the Tea Bagger movement that is pure libertarian. These people have been protesting the Fed and big banks for years. Monetary policy is the holy grail for these people. What's more, the libertarians are the more coherent part of the Tea Partiers, which the rambling Right has latched on to in its efforts to magnify its incohate shrieking. There is already some frustration amongst the libertarian folks at how the tea baggers are making them look ridiculous, and this sort of about face - opposing the bail out and then opposing smashing the banks - is not going to sit well with them.

But I could be wrong, because as you say, the tea baggers have gotten pretty reflexive. So say instead that this will be a good test of how genuine the tea bag movement really was.

I intitially responded to this comment: "MORE GOV...

2009-10-22T16:44:28.570-04:00

I intitially responded to this comment:

"MORE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION," and, like clockwork, the tea partiers will begin chanting along in unison.

One of the founding principles of this country was clearly limited central governmental control. The King controlled the colonies from what may have well have been a universe away. The colonies could not be represented fairly from overseas and they were not going to let what they envisioned as a growing nation to be governed from a central capital. The 10th ammendment does a fine job of explaining their desire for states rights as opposed to a big central government.

To say they were for more government control in the 1770's does not mean they would be for more goverment control in 2009. The founding fathers would be horrified at the size and reach of the federal government today.

The constitution clearly limits government and that's what conservatives (should) believe in. My origianal point was that we have always stood for limited government. Conservatives don't just chant in unison about it because Hannity said to.

"When a new country is created they have no govern...

2009-10-22T14:44:52.393-04:00

"When a new country is created they have no government. So yes, when they formed an actual government they then had more government than they previously had which was none."

The forming of our country did not exist in a vacuum. It was not a transition from "no government" to "more government". Prior to the establishment of the Constitution, there was the Articles of Confederation, which was inneffective. Prior to the AoC, there was British colonial rule, which, also, was a form of government. Unless you're seriously going to argue that the creation of the Constitution based US spontaneously formed with no consideration for the AoC and the British control, then you know your analogy is specious. If you actually are going to argue that, then you are hopeless, and we can stop now.

"I really don't think because of the fact they actually formed a government means their philosophy for governing was "MORE GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLUTION."

This isn't remotely what's been argued. What's been argued, since you seem to have missed it, is that the eventual citizens of the US were British colonists under the rule of king George and the British govt, who rebelled because of their representation being unsatisfactory, and whom then attempted to form a union with the AoC, which was also unsatisfactory, and eventually came up with the Constitution.

If you want to make an argument that the Constitution provided for less federal power than the AoC, you are more than welcome, but you will only continue to show your ignorance of history.

Robert: When a new country is created they have n...

2009-10-22T14:25:41.695-04:00

Robert:

When a new country is created they have no government. So yes, when they formed an actual government they then had more government than they previously had which was none. I really don't think because of the fact they actually formed a government means their philosophy for governing was "MORE GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLUTION."

Regardless of what liberal teachers or professors you had in history class, the founding fathers clearly wanted to limit the size and power of the federal government.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Could this split the repubs? Really? It is more ...

2009-10-21T19:42:49.059-04:00

Could this split the repubs? Really? It is more amazing the second time, without the heat of the election, watch and be amazed!

Palin on the Bush doctrine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMaZhGvmkI

And finally, the Couric interview that started it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxAO7cH-xrE

I SURE HOPE SHE RUNS!!!!!!

Columbia hits on the reason why I find this analys...

2009-10-21T19:37:07.951-04:00

Columbia hits on the reason why I find this analysis unconvincing- how many "lower class" congressmen are there? Not a lot.

There is just too much money from Goldman Sacha, JP Morgan, and the other banks sloshing in Congressional coffers, especially on the Democratic side, for them to contemplate breaking up the "big banks." Forcing the Republicans to choose between the populists and their corporate supporters would require Democrats to make the same choice. That's not something they'll do if they have any other options... and they do, since they have the majority and control the Congressional agenda. Look for some modest regulatory patching around the edges but no major legislation.

So what will they debate in 2010? Well, major initiatives are pretty uncommon on election years. You might see some immigration reform issues; with illegal immigration now at its lowest level in decades, people just might be willing to talk sense.

An awful lot depends on events. Big GOP victories on November 3 probably make major initiatives unlikely (and kill the public option/ nationalization schemes in health care), while Democratic wins increase their chances. A cold winter, as seems likely, kicks global warming alarmism to the curb. And of course, there'll probably be some foreign crisis to respond to, as well as rising unemployment and deficits here.

It's an interesting analysis, Nate, and it has merit, but I don't agree with it.

You "really don't know how the teabaggers will com...

2009-10-21T19:36:30.969-04:00

You "really don't know how the teabaggers will come down on this issue"?

Are you fcuking serious?

The teabaggers will take the opposite position that the White House takes, whatever that may be. No matter what Obama does or says or proposes, the teabaggers will oppose it, with great enthusiasm. It's a mortal lock - the safest bet in the history of the universe.

I am astounded that you would hedge on this. And your implication that the tea-party movement has even the slightest shred of integrity is, frankly, the most preposterous thing I have ever read on this site.

What the hell are you smoking? And where can I get some?

I found your argument interesting and repeated it ...

2009-10-21T19:29:30.293-04:00

I found your argument interesting and repeated it to my wife. She said the Teabaggers wouldn't support breaking up the large banks because they will believe anything that Fox news tells them.

You might think about finding some data to support their differing from the faux populist to any real issue.

If the White House ever has a position that doesn'...

2009-10-21T19:24:39.172-04:00

If the White House ever has a position that doesn't kill job creation or doesn't continue to balloon the deficit or doesn't force us towards a socialized government, the GOP just may support it. All we see from this administration is "more of the same".

lol, given that Bush has both the record in debt-creation and job loss, I can certainly see why it's "more of the same" to you.

There is also a division along class lines. Upper...

2009-10-21T18:46:10.607-04:00

There is also a division along class lines. Upper class more of the Summers position (but the less regulation the better). Middle and Lower classes would favor the Volcker position. Another reason why there is such a weird breakdown in Congress that is not along party lines between those that have been bought and paid for by special interests and those who have a more populist bent.

Everyone is for splitting up the giant banks, on a...

2009-10-21T18:43:34.208-04:00

Everyone is for splitting up the giant banks, on all sides, they make the Glenn Beck crazies paranoid, and the lefties inherently hate them for their money and power. LEts stop these guys and move on.

When even Alan Greenspan is saying "if you are too...

2009-10-21T18:30:44.332-04:00

When even Alan Greenspan is saying "if you are too big to fail, you are too big", and when that is such a straightforward argument I think it is hard to not take the point that large banks need to be broken up (or regulated so tightly they are effectively broken up).

I think that the anger over the near record bonuses at Goldman might help push this issue further too.

But there are other issues that may dominate the Obama administration including the continued slow failure of Afghanistan and the (possible) continued down turn or double dip recession. I mean the stock market is up, but jobs aren't. And the housing market is still scary in terms of the number of homes underwater, in foreclosure processing, or otherwise a big problem. And banks are way, way, way behind on following through on foreclosures, but with more and more people losing homes and jobs the economy might be issues 1, 2, and 3 for the future.

@GROG I believe the discussion was about the "far...

2009-10-21T17:44:02.503-04:00

@GROG

I believe the discussion was about the "far right". The portion of the GOP that couldn't for the life of them tell spell out the differences between socialism, fascism, and an icecream sundae.

Which I guess you are a member of? :P